(This article was written when George Bush was President and shortly after the Gulf War.)

In Genesis 11:1-9, we learn of a united human race, one in both language
and purpose, determined to build a tower in the Plain of Shinar. The construction
of the tower was to serve as a monument to human achievement. The attitude
of the builders was indicative of those who had rejected God as their Creator.
Dr. Merrill F. Unger, in his well-known dictionary of the Bible, identifies
the basic motivation underlying the entire project as “God-defying disobedience
and pride” (Unger's Bible Dictionary, p. 114). In his book, New Age Globalism,
H. Edward Rowe wrote:

We must not miss the central warning that resounds
through the corridors of the long centuries to our time. The tower builders
structured a mighty global organization, independent of God. They dedicated
it to the establishment of a human unity which would secure them against
the prospect of being scattered apart throughout the world (p. 6).

The
Bible, of course, teaches us that God was very much displeased with such
an effort, and , as a result, “confounded their language” and “scattered
them abroad,” the very thing they were trying to prevent!

The New Babel

The descendants of the Babel builders are still with us today. Their plan
for creating a “global society” is evident in their various writings. In
Humanist Manifesto II, under the heading, “World Community,” we read:

We
deplore the division of humankind on nationalistic grounds. We have reached
a turning point in human history where the best option is to transcend
the limits of national sovereignty as to move toward the building of a
world community... We look to the development of a system of world law
and a world order based upon transnational federal government.

Elsewhere
in the same document, we read:

What more daring a goal for humankind than
for each person to become, in ideal as well as practice, a citizen of a
world community.

According to this document:

No deity will save us: we
must save ourselves.

As a result of the 1944 Dumbarton Oaks Proposal, as well as the 1945 Yalta
and San Francisco Conferences, the United Nations Charter came into force
on October 24, 1945. On December 14, 1946, the U.N. accepted a gift of
$8.6 million from John D. Rockefeller, Jr., to buy the eighteen acres of
land on New York's East River upon which the current U.N. building sits.
The next year, the U.S. Congress approved a $65 million interest-free loan
to finance the construction of the glass, stone, and steel tower dedicated
to the enshrinement of “collective security.” Between 1945 and 1987, the
United States contributed $17 billion of the estimated $87 billion spent
by this organization. The nonaligned nations, which make up the majority
of the United Nations delegations, have voted with the communist line fully
85 percent of the time in the General Assembly. Like the Tower of Babel
before it, the United Nations, worshipping the false gods of man, all in
the name of unity and security, represents a denial of the Lordship of
Jesus Christ, the Creator, Sustainer, and Savior of the world. The builders
of this modern-day Tower of Babel place man above God and the Almighty
State above man.

The initial optimism with which the world was aglow after World War II
has long since faded before the gruesome reality of some three-hundred
plus civil and regional wars that have raged since 1945, including Korea
and Vietnam (Fred Bruning, “The U.N. At Forty,” The Courier-Journal, September
22, 1985, p. D1). In addition, during these past forty-six years, there
have been no shortages of bombings, assassinations, hijackings, and other
such demonstrations of man's inhumanity to his fellowman. Although the
recent “defeat” of communism and the “one--hundred hour” war to “liberate”
Kuwait has bolstered the optimism of some, as we shall see later, these
are nothing to get excited about, and have, in fact, caused untold suffering
and death for many people.

The Underpinnings Of Both Projects

Obviously, then, both projects—the tower on the Plain of Shinar and the
one on New York's East River—convey significant information about the societies
they represent. Dr. Rowe, who we mentioned previously, in identifying these
indicators as they relate to the Tower of Babel, wrote:

Philosophically, it represents belief in the priority of the materialistic
realm over the spiritual.

Theologically, it involves a substitution of a false god for the True and
Living God.

Psychologically, it implies confidence in the achievement of security by
means of a global man-made unity.

Educationally, it means problem solution based on adequacy of man rather
than guidance of God.

Administratively, it exhibits an unfounded assurance of the self-sufficiency
of organized man without reliance on God.

Anthropologically, it proclaims the glories of human pride and self-aggrandizement.

Of course, one has little difficulty applying these same indicators to
the United Nations.

“Whose Top May Reach Unto Heaven”

The builders of the Tower of Babel were determined to build a tower “whose
top may reach unto heaven.” It is interesting, then, that Alvin Toffler,
in his popular book, The Third Wave, wrote:

Globalism presents itself
as more than an ideology serving the interests of a limited group. Precisely
as nationalism claimed to speak for the whole nation, globalism claims
to speak for the whole world. And its appearance is seen as an evolutionary
necessity—a step closer to a `cosmic consciousness' that would embrace
the heavens as well (p. 308).

Quoted in an official brochure of the World
Federalists Association, the late Bertrand Russell summed up the case for
“One-World-ism” with these words:

Science has made unrestricted national
sovereignty incompatible with human survival. The only possibilities are
now world government or death”(World Peace Through World Law With Justice...Developing
New Avenues To World Order, 1101 Arlington Blvd., Suite S-119, Arlington,
Va. 22209).

Lord Beveridge of England put it this way:

World peace requires
world order. World order requires world law. World law requires world government (Phillip D. Butler, Parliamentarians for World Order, in The Canadian Intelligence
Service, Vol. 33, No. 5, May 1983, p. 41).

Back in June, 1976, Former presidents
of the National Education Association (an organization that is a strong
supporter of the U.N.) had this to say about educators and their role in
developing a new world order or “global community”:

It is with...sobering
awareness that we set about to change the course of American education
for the twenty-first century by embracing the ideals of global community,
the equality and interdependence of all peoples and nations, and education
as a tool to bring about world peace” (From the Forward to A Declaration
of Interdependence: Education for a Global Community, A summary Report
of the NEA Bicentennial Program, an NEA publication dated June 26, 1976).

The title of this document is even more interesting when one considers
that on January 30, 1976, the World Affairs Council announced the Declaration
of Interdependence, which was signed by 32 U.S. Senators and 92 U.S. Representatives
in Washington, D.C., and read in part:

Two centuries ago our forefather
brought forth a new nation; now we must join with others to bring forth
a new world order.

This document further stated:

To establish a new world
order...it is essential that mankind free itself from the limitations on
national prejudice....

And again:

We call upon all nations to strengthen
the United Nations...and other institutions of world order... (A. Ralph
Epperson, The Unseen Hand, p. 371).

Furthermore, we ought not to be surprised that former ambassador to the
United Nations, and now president, George Bush, who was between 1977 and
1979, a director of the U.S. Council on Foreign Relations, a body of so-called
“wise men” who have dominated foreign policy making by the United States
government since before World War II, and who came up with the idea of
the United Nations, would fight the Persian Gulf War under the aegis of
a United Nations Security Council mandate. On January 29, 1991, during
his State of the Union address, President Bush made it clear that the fate
of Kuwait was not the main issue:

What is at stake is more than one small
country, it is a big idea—a new world order, where diverse nations are
drawn together in common cause to achieve the universal aspirations of
mankind: peace and security, freedom, and the rule of law. Such is a world
worthy of our struggle, and worthy of our children's future.

In his March
6, 1991 address to Congress commemorating the successful conclusion of
the Persian Gulf War, Bush said:

Until now, the world we've known has
been a world divided—a world of barbed wire and concrete block, conflict
and cold war. Now, we can see a new world coming into view. A world in
which there is the very real prospect of a new world order.... A world
where the United Nations, freed from cold war stalemate, is poised to fulfill
the historic vision of its founders.

Then, when the wounded dictator of
Iraq, a despot we had helped arm, lashed out against people in his own
country, we suddenly refused to intervene. Why? We cannot support the Kurds,
we were told, because it is not part of the United Nations mandate.

I am not so naive as to think that President Bush allowed himself and American
to be used by the United Nations. In fact, it is the other way around.
Bush effectively manipulated the United Nations apparatus to do what he
wanted it to do. We, of course, have strategic interests in this very unstable
part of the world, and Saddam Hussein needed to be taught that he could
not exercise his military muscle without serious consequences. The military
might that was exercised in the Persian Gulf War belonged to America, not
the United Nations. The United Nations did what our government wanted it
to do, and some will argue that this is good because our cause was just.
But, suppose it had not been just? This, of course, is one of the problems
with world government. A world government apparatus can be, and eventually
will be, used by tyrants and imperialists to manipulate the greater masses
for even greater evil. Interestingly enough, Isaiah Bowman, at a U.S. Council
on Foreign Relations meeting in May 1942, suggested a United Nations body
as a way for the United States to exercise its strength to assure “security”
in the world, and at the same time “avoid conventional forms of imperialism”
(Memorandum T-A25, May 20, 1942, CFR, War-Peace Studies, Hoover Library
on War, Revolution, and Peace, Stanford, CA).

Nevertheless, should we not see the irony in an united mankind (viz., the
United Nations) in the name of “collective security” assembling once again
in the very place where mankind was originally scattered abroad by God
because of their ungodly and ill-conceived unity platform?

Globalism And One-World-Ism Is
A Man-Made Delusion

The apostle Paul taught a “oneness” of mankind that can only be recognized
by those who understand that Jehovah is their Creator (Acts 17:22-31).
Nationalism, which has been ordained by the Creator-God, cannot be abridged
by man's devices without serious consequences. Ultimately, the solution
to mankind's problem is of Divine and not man-made origin. All nations
are to seek the Lord (Acts 17:26,27). He, and He alone, is the Savior.
His house, the church of Christ, has already been established and “all
nations [must flow] unto it” in order to be saved (Isaiah 2:2,3). It is
only in this everlasting spiritual kingdom that men out of every nation
on the face of the earth will “beat their swords into plowshares, and their
spears into pruning hooks,” and “nation shall not lift up sword against
nation, neither shall they learn war anymore” (Isaiah 2:4).